Re: amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous, sacred / ceremonial sites

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous, sacred / ceremonial sites

EthnicFood IsGreat

> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 22:34:55 +0100
> From: Paul Allen <[hidden email]>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of
> indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> haven’t we written somewhere in our terms that the information isn’t
>> reliable? I’m quite sure we have. Some people have to be told that coffee
>> is hot, kittens must not be dried in the microwave and map data may contain
>> errors.
>>
> Sadly, yes, some people do have to be told these things.  Or, to state it
> more precisely, many
> companies find it necessary to place warnings of such things on their
> products to avoid being
> sued in court.  AGAIN.  That's why we have so many warning labels in our
> daily lives, telling
> us not to do things that the vast majority of us would never think of doing.
>
> We may state that the information isn't reliable, but I don't see that as
> an excuse to map things
> incorrectly.  It's an admission that we make mistakes, not a licence to
> deliberately mis-map.
>
> One person in this thread claimed, incorrectly, that there are no access
> restrictions to religious
> structures and that it is not possible to determine if somebody meets the
> restrictions he said
> don't exist.  Such restrictions do exist and the penalties for contravening
> them can be harsh.
> Very harsh.
>
> I see no reason to disallow something like access=adherents and every
> reason to adopt
> it.  Even if you think it completely unnecessary, it's not doing any harm
> if it represents the
> actual situation on the ground better than having access=yes,
> access=private or no
> access tag at all.  It doesn't conflict with any other tagging, and doesn't
> break the
> semantics of the access=* tag.

[...]

I agree with access=adherents if used as a default, in the event you
don't know any different.  Access=yes would apply I think to most
churches in the United States, as anyone is welcome to enter.  I know
that's the case for my church.

Mark



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging